First of all, thanks for all the suggestions We're now proceeding to the next step of the changes period. This thread will be used to discuss the topics which were brought up in the suggestions thread.

The suggestions are ordered by numbers. You can vote/discuss each of the topics and also reply to posts of other players.

It's not necessary to vote for all the topics, but the players' participation is important for a decision/change to be made.

COMMITMENTS

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?Yes/No? (Current rule: yes)

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?
Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes)

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying?Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?

4) Late entries & SE's:No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?
Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?

5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?

13) Standardizing the OOP:No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?

TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
Yes/No (Curret rule: no)

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?
GD should be used as the PTS system?

RANKING POINTS

17) Qualifying points: There should be points for qualifying wins.
Yes/No ONLY IN GS & MASTERS EVENTS(Current rule: no)

18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?Yes. A player shouldn't be punished for success in singles or doubles when his other ranking iss too low to get direct entry.

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?
Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes)No, if qualifying points are introduced (what I support).

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying?
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?Players should be able to commit early, but should be out of QD and MD when they are still alive in the Slam on Saturday.

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?
Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?I'd say no restrictions for anyone whose rankings isn't high enough to get direct entry.
Someone with a high ranking who only forgot to commit shouldn't be able to get an SE.

5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)
Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?One player is enough, that way it's far easier for the manager. But the commitment should be clear. No question marks or something like that.

6) Singles commitments by another person?
Yes/No (Current rule: yes)No. Everybody should have the time to commit in the 10 days before the first deadline.

8) Should there be a restriction to avoid singles R1 matches between doubles partners?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)Absolutely not.

SENDING PICKS

9) Should picks which were sent to the person who posted the OOP be accepted?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)I'd say no. Maybe one can add something like "when the person who posted the OOP forwards the picks to the manager before the deadline they are counted", but there is no need for that person to do so. That would be a chance for the players who read the OOP wrong, if they are lucky.

10) Should picks sent by e-mail be accepted?
Yes/No/Facebook? (Current rule: yes)Yes.

11) Should there be a punishment for players who don't send picks?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)No.

OOP

12) Standard minimum of TT matches in first rounds (4, 5, 6, 7, no restrictions?)No. Managers usually create a good amount of matches for the first round and I trust all of them to keep doing that without additional rules.

13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?No. That's always something I enjoy most while managing. My choices are often bad, but that's the players bad luck Everyone has the same chance anyway.

TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
Yes/No (Curret rule: no)Yes. I think that's a really great idea.

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)No. The order of the OOP is mostly luck anyway, so that order should remain the same. Everyone has the same number of winners and SRs anyway when it's used.

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?
GD should be used as the PTS system?

GD should be used as the PTS system. It's less luck about who serves first (obviously it's luck, too; but at least a little bit less).

18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.
Yes/No (Current rule: no)I like that idea, most high ranked players play with the same partner most of the year anyway, that way you can avoid to tear teams apart for WTF because one of the players didn't have time to play in maybe only one week.

20) Challenger choices: ranking points/entry list quality or diversity of continents/timezones?Managers first. I always like managing (and playing!) tournaments with unknown players, so they should be used if they suit the available managers.

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?Yes/No? (Current rule: yes)

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes)But qualifying and a CH in the same week shouldn't be possible.

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying?
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?

5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?

13) Standardizing the OOP:No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?

TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
Yes/No (Curret rule: no)

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)
Read in Jims post and added to mine: ...but would change to yes if standardized OOP adopted.

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?GD should be used as the PTS system?

RANKING POINTS

17) Qualifying points: There should be points for qualifying wins.
Yes/No (Current rule: no)Yes, but only in ATP Main Tour tournaments

18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.Yes/No (Current rule: no)

First priority is to thank Murilo for taking all the various suggestions and getting them into a logical order ready for voting.

COMMITMENTS

I believe the over-riding principle should be that if you can't be in 2 places at once in real life you can't be in 2 places in TT

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?
Yes/No? (Current rule: yes)

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes)but they cannot commit to the challenger until their GS result is known. This probably means they would only be able to play the challenger MD and not the QD

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying?Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?

5) Doubles commitments:It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)
Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?

6) Singles commitments by another person?Yes/No (Current rule: yes)

DRAWS

7) Late entries & seedings
No restrictions? (current rule)Late entries shouldn't be seeded? I believe in anything which makes the manager's life simpler

8) Should there be a restriction to avoid singles R1 matches between doubles partners?
Yes/No. Definitely not. The luck of the draw is the luck of the draw (Current rule: no)

SENDING PICKS

9) Should picks which were sent to the person who posted the OOP be accepted?Yes, but only if the "wrong" person is able and willing to forward them to the manager before the deadline. The manager should not have to wait till the OOP poster is online to find out if they have received picks for X,Y,Z/No (Current rule: no)

10) Should picks sent by e-mail be accepted?Yes/No/Facebook????? You must be joking? (Current rule: yes)

11) Should there be a punishment for players who don't send picks?
Yes/No. No specific punishment, but NAME AND SHAME, so that potential doubles partners can be aware. Someone would need to keep an up-to-date tally of the number of times each player has defaulted. I would volunteer if this suggestion is adopted. (Current rule: no)

OOP

12) Standard minimum of TT matches in first rounds (4, 5, 6, 7, no restrictions. Each tournament has its own schedule, and managers try to do whatever is fairest?)

13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?, provided the TB system is also changed

TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
Yes/No. This would either need new software from Evita or manual calculation. If Evita could incorporate it without any difficulty then I would be in favour. (Curret rule: no)

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No while the OOP is in theoretical order of difficulty, but would change to yes if standardized OOP adopted. (Current rule: no)

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines? Yes, this was my suggestion anyway
GD should be used as the PTS system? Honestly don't know. Some managers have difficulty deciding matches on PTS, and GD is even more complicated. I agree with those who claim GD rewards accuracy better.

RANKING POINTS

17) Qualifying points: There should be points for qualifying wins.Yes. Absolutely yes, especially for newcomers this would be be an incentive. Extra work for Gav though./No (Current rule: no)

18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.
Yes/No. Not everyone is lucky enough to have a regular partner. (Current rule: no)

20) Challenger choices: ranking points/entry list quality or diversity of continents/timezones? No quarrel with the present arrangement. Marto and Labamba have done a good job

21) Possible exception: Accepting picks 1/2/3/4/5 minutes after the deadline? When I managed I accepted picks up to 5 minutes late, because I was never sure that my old slow computer was showing exactly the correct time. I have no problem with a little flexibility, but I have no problem if the decision is to go for 100% strictness either.

M. T. F.
The biggest source of bullshit since cattle were domesticated.

Since we are already using the shootout system, this means that both players picked the same number of correct winners and correct SRs. So the winner depends only on the TT OOP (which is subjective). I don't think that the player who guessed the correct winner in a match with a higher priority is better than the player who gave more credit to the winner in a match where both players failed to guess the winner.

I don't see why guessing the correct winner in a "more competative" match but failing to guess who wins a "less competative" one is a better result than the opposite.

Well the rule will stay the same but it's hilarious we are deciding to reward getting something wrong rather than getting something right. Imagine if betting markets allowed punters to win this way - or any other system allowed people to win based on getting it wrong. There should be no reward for "almost" guessing a result correctly over correctly picking a winner.

This rule is particularly flawed for Grand Slams where straight set matches are far less common. But the crowd is happy with it so enjoy!

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)? Yes/No? (Current rule: yes)

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week? Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes)

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying?
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?

Only when they are out

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?

5) Doubles commitments: It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)
Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?

13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?

TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout. Yes/No (Curret rule: no)

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?
GD should be used as the PTS system?

21) Possible exception: Accepting picks 1/2/3/4/5 minutes after the deadline? Of course yes! If the matches don´t start and the only at 5 minutes later, picks shoul be count! have no problem with a little flexibility. Because it´s a game and it´s to have fun . And sometimes when I need to study I only start choose 5/10 before the deadline and sometimes send picks 2 minutes after the deadline and don´t count.

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)? Yes Maybe it's not realistic, but we don't need more complications.

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week? No

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?Yes/No? (Current rule: yes)

Yes. There is no air travel in TT and not allowing this only penalizes lower ranked players for actually having a successful week by then costing them a week of play.

Quote:

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?

Quote:

Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes)

No if qualifying points are introduced.

Quote:

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:

Quote:

GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying?
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?

Players should be able to commit only after they're out.

Quote:

4) Late entries & SE's:

Quote:

No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?
Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?

Current rule is fine.

Quote:

5) Doubles commitments:

Quote:

It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)
Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?

This is tricky, and I'm someone who has been committing my doubles partner all year with him maybe confirming half the time For us, it worked because we always played together, but I do understand the confusion of people who are trying to pair up. I'm okay with requiring confirmation. When we originally had this rule put in place, it was for people who are trying to see if they can make main draw in one tournament over another and may not have had time to get their doubles partner to also commit before the deadline. I'm not sure how much people still entry list watch. You can't hold regular partners to one standard and those who pair up week to week to another. I think whatever the majority wants here is fine with me.

Quote:

6) Singles commitments by another person?

Quote:

Yes/No (Current rule: yes)

I think this is okay This is mainly doubles partners committing their partner, maybe the partner is on vacation or something.

8) Should there be a restriction to avoid singles R1 matches between doubles partners?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

#8, I mean, it sucks, but that's too much draw manipulation for my taste.

Quote:

SENDING PICKS

Quote:

9) Should picks which were sent to the person who posted the OOP be accepted?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

No. I understand the position of the other side here for sure, but it is important to read the directions when you're sending.

Quote:

10) Should picks sent by e-mail be accepted?

Quote:

Yes/No/Facebook? (Current rule: yes)

Yes, in the case where MTF is having database errors, etc.

Quote:

11) Should there be a punishment for players who don't send picks?

Quote:

Yes/No (Current rule: no)

I would support some sort of warning system for habitual offenders. Everyone has something come up once in a while.. power outage, trip to hospital, family emergency... but this should be rare. A first time warning, second time penalty, type system I think would be fine. In singles, sure these people are replaced by LLs in the first round or alts in qualifying, but their doubles partner gets screwed.

I'm not really fond of split OOPs where there are 1 or 2 matches on Tuesday as part of the first round and the rest are second round. Then the manager has to be around to post a second set of differences after first round winners are known etc. I think this should be done as infrequently as possible. TT SF rounds are always decided by just 4 matches, I would say that's a satisfactory minimum to have for any round.

Quote:

13) Standardizing the OOP:

Quote:

No - Manager's choice (Current rule)Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?

I like this idea if the spreadsheet can be adapted to do this for managers. Sometimes I will admit, I have been over some of the OOPs and what matches managers select for SR1 or SR2 that seem pretty obvious. The idea is that the more difficult matches are at the top of the OOP, so I don't like the idea of top to bottom or left to right at all, that's totally random.

Quote:

TB System

Quote:

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
Yes/No (Curret rule: no)

I'm not sure I understand what this is asking... maybe I missed a discussion somewhere I need to look into that explains this better....

Quote:

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?

Quote:

Yes/No (Current rule: no)

Hmm, I say yes here. I think it's better to reward being right about something than to reward being slightly less wrong.

Quote:

16) PTS:

Quote:

Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?
GD should be used as the PTS system?

Yes I hate PTS
GD > PTS

I'm all for no more PTS in TT! This has been my platform for 5 years now Go play PTS, you PTS lovers

In the past I've always said no, even though I like playing with regular partners. In general, regular partners do qualify together, but for a while this year mcarvalho/Machado and Bibberz and myself were 1/3 and 2/4 in the rankings, Bibberz and I only played apart I think one week out of this entire year and it was enough to create that little bit of space. Of course, all four of us in this example are in the WTF this year, but if we were a little lower in the rankings and one of the four of us didn't get in... BUT I don't like excluding people who have a lot of good results but don't have a regular partner. I still lean no But... my mind is a little bit torn on this. My official vote is no, but it's a weak no.

I will leave this for people who it affects most to decide I would say quality > diversity of timezones but I would say it should be up to managers for what events they can manage and what events those players are most interested in playing.

No, absolutely not, it's a slippery slope. If you start accepting picks 1 min late, then people will say "Oh but I was only 2 minutes late" "Oh but I was only 1 minute later than the 1 minute late that's allowed" Just, no. Send on time, you get several hours to do so, there's no need to be sending at the last second

#8, I mean, it sucks, but that's too much draw manipulation for my taste

This is out of line. You may disagree with that idea, but what you said is unnecessarily harsh. Personally, I find no fun playing my doubles partner. It's perfectly fine that you disagree with it, but saying it sucks is offending.

This is out of line. You may disagree with that idea, but what you said is unnecessarily harsh. Personally, I find no fun playing my doubles partner. It's perfectly fine that you disagree with it, but saying it sucks is offending.

I meant that it sucks playing your partner not that the idea to manipulate the draw sucks. I'm not a mean person Sorry if it was unclear I have played my doubles partners many many many times Trust me that I know it's no fun, I feel qualified to say that playing your doubles partner sucks but that there's nothing you can do about it really That's all I meant

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?Yes/No? (Current rule: yes)

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes)

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying?
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?

5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?

13) Standardizing the OOP:No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?

TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.Yes/No (Curret rule: no)

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

16) PTS:Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?
GD should be used as the PTS system?

RANKING POINTS

17) Qualifying points: There should be points for qualifying wins.Yes/No (Current rule: no)

18) There should be a Team Race for the World Tour Finals.Yes/No (Current rule: no)

I meant that it sucks playing your partner not that the idea to manipulate the draw sucks. I'm not a mean person Sorry if it was unclear I have played my doubles partners many many many times Trust me that I know it's no fun, I feel qualified to say that playing your doubles partner sucks but that there's nothing you can do about it really That's all I meant

First of all, thanks for all the suggestions We're now proceeding to the next step of the changes period. This thread will be used to discuss the topics which were brought up in the suggestions thread.

The suggestions are ordered by numbers. You can vote/discuss each of the topics and also reply to posts of other players.

It's not necessary to vote for all the topics, but the players' participation is important for a decision/change to be made.

COMMITMENTS

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)?
Yes/No? (Current rule: yes) YES

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week?
Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes) YES

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events:
GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule) YES
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying? YES
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami? NO

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?
Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE? NO

5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule) NO
Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list? YES

13) Standardizing the OOP:
No - Manager's choice (Current rule) NO
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?NO
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?

NO

TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
Yes/No (Curret rule: no) NO

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No (Current rule: no) NO

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?
GD should be used as the PTS system?
YES

1) Should players be allowed to play in two places at the same time (the final of a week X event AND the qualifying of a week x+1 event)? Yes/No? (Current rule: yes)

2) Should players who lose in a Grand Slam qualifying be allowed to play a challenger in the following week? Yes/No/No if qualifying points are introduced? (Current rule: Yes)

3) GS/IW/Miami week 2 events: GS R16 - out of qualifying; GS QF - out of MD? (current rule)
Players who're still alive in the GS (or IW/Miami) by Saturday (GS R16) should be out of the 2nd week challengers, MD or qualifying?
Players should be able to commit to the 2nd week challengers only after they're out of the GSs/IW/Miami?

4) Late entries & SE's:
No restrictions? (current rule)
Players who commit as late entries 48 hours or less before the final deadline shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?Players who commit as late entries shouldn't be eligible to receive a SE?

5) Doubles commitments:
It should be enough if only a player commits the doubles team? (current rule)Both players in a partnership should commit/confirm before being accepted in the doubles list?

13) Standardizing the OOP: No - Manager's choice (Current rule)
Yes - The order should be decided by the number of differences of each match: more diffs -> higher in the SR order?
Yes - The order should be decided by the order of the matches in the official OOP: left to right or top to bottom?

TB System

14) TB method: The number of sets given to the winner when the player picks the loser (2-1, 3-2 & 3-1 losing picks) should be a tie-breaker before the SR shootout.
Yes/No (Curret rule: no)

15) SR Shootout: Picking the correct winner or SR of a lower SR should have priority over giving a set to the winner when both players pick the loser in a higher SR?
Yes/No (Current rule: no)

16) PTS:
Correct order of sets should always beat correct scorelines?
GD should be used as the PTS system?